Solar-Cosmic Ray Climate Hypothesis: Svensmark’s solar-cosmic ray hypothesis states that cosmic rays, modulated by solar wind and magnetism, are important in the formation of low level clouds, thereby important in influencing climate change. It is being tested by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) with the Cosmic Leaving OUdoor Droplets (CLOUD) experiment. Reports are due out this summer. This week produced an interesting twist. The Director General of CERN, Rolf-Heuer, publicly stated that he told his colleagues to present the results clearly, but not interpret them.

One can interpret this statement in many ways. One, it is a refreshing change to the procedures of the IPCC and others which has been described as science by press release. The summary of the study is excitedly presented first, followed months later by the actual results that do not support some of the more extreme pronouncements in the summary.

A second interpretation of the statement is that, if the hypothesis withstands these rigorous tests, then the results will be severely scrutinized by the orthodoxy that claims carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing dangerous and unprecedented global warming. The orthodoxy includes the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), many governments, politicians, financial traders, and special interest groups that have spent billions of dollars on establishing and proclaiming the CO2 is the cause of global warming. According to the General Accountability Office, the US government, alone, has spent over $100 Billion as of October 2010. Those responsible for these expenditures will be furious if CO2 is not the principal cause of climate change.

A third possible interpretation of the statement is that the results, the data, will be so boring that they will be quickly dismissed. However, this appears unlikely. Already, the hypothesis has withstood two tests, and the CLOUD experiment is by far the most rigorous. The challengers to the orthodoxy are increasing.

If the solar-cosmic ray hypothesis withstands the tests, it does not necessarily invalidate the hypothesis that CO2 contributes to global warming. (The hypothesis that CO2 is causing dangerous and unprecedented global warming has already failed testing.) It merely confirms that the role of CO2 in warming has been greatly overestimated.

Similarly, a successful report does not invalidate the hypothesis that oscillations of the oceans, internal to the earth, cause climate change. Or that humans cause local or regional climate change by changing land use – irrigating deserts, draining swamps, building cities, etc. Each hypothesis must be properly tested against the null hypothesis. Gradually, the significance of each influence may be understood. But we can only wait for the upcoming results. Please see articles referenced under “Science: Is the Sun Rising.”

****************************

Low Sensitivity to Change: On his web site, Roy Spencer posted a further article describing the testing of his very simple climate model against observations of temperature trends of the oceans to a depth of 700 meters. In the model he uses a combination of the NASA-GISS assumed external forcings and an El Nino / La Nina internal forcing. Spencer intentionally excludes other influences such as the solar-cosmic ray influence.

The model tracks quite well with the observations from 1955 to 2010 using an assumed climate sensitivity of only 1.1 deg C. Using Hansen’s assumed forcings, Spencer’s model does better in explaining ocean temperatures than the elaborate IPCC models. Apparently, the so-called missing heat is not in the deep oceans but lost to outer space. This indicates that the climate system is not very sensitive to a doubling of CO2 as claimed by the IPCC and other alarmists. Please see Article # 1.

****************************

Misleading the Public: Roger Pielke, Sr. continues to post on his web site announcements of briefings, meetings, etc. that he considers mislead the public. Also, these may be a misuse of public funds. The meetings focus on the use of IPCC general circulation models, modified to project regional changes. The general models have never been validated, thus are scientifically unreliable. The critical assumption that a modest warming from CO2 will be amplified by water vapor fails hypothesis testing. To project multi-decade changes at a regional level from non-validated global models with failed assumptions is pure speculation, not science.

As the two models used in U.S.-National Assessment of Climate Change (2000) demonstrated, different models produce different results for the same region. For all eighteen regions covered by the models, the projections for rainfall varied significantly by model. For eight of the eighteen regions the signs were different, rainfall may increase or it may decrease, depending on the model. The most extreme example was the Souris-Red River basin in the Dakotas. (Due to the geology of the basin, area is subject to flooding, the most recent being the flooding of Minot, ND last month.) One model projected a decline in rainfall of over 80% which would result in a desert. The other model projected an increase in rainfall of over 80% which would result in a swamp.

Organizations involved in upcoming presentations include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU). The National Science Foundation (NSF) has ignored requests to justify funding such ventures. Please see referenced articles under “Models v. Observations” and Fig 18, p 15, NIPCC 2008, http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf.

****************************

Quote of the Week: This week’s quote from a Penn State study on gas from shale embodies an economic concept that seems to elude many leaders in a number of developed nations, including the US, England, Australia, etc. Energy costs relate directly and indirectly to the disposable income of households and to their standards of living. Decreasing energy costs increase disposable income and standards of living. It is similar to a tax cut. Increasing energy costs lower disposable income and standards of living. It is similar to a tax increase. Many politicians promote wind and other alternative energy as the path to prosperity, even though these methods significantly raise energy costs (either directly or through subsidies). The politicians are, in effect, declaring that prosperity can be achieved by lowering the disposable income and standards of living of the general public. Please see article referenced under “Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past.”

****************************

Buy High, Sell Low: Ontario Province in Canada may be the most aggressive jurisdiction in the Americas mandating alternative energy, especially wind. In Ontario, wind blows mainly at night, especially in the spring and fall when electricity spot prices are low. A retired banker and a businessman, upset by sharply increasing electricity bills, examined the electricity transactions of the province’s grid operator and found economically absurd situations. The operator is obligated to buy electricity from wind farms and must dispose of excess electricity to other provinces or US states. In May, it was paying $135 per MWh and receiving $25 per MWh, or less, for the excess. Of course, such losses are passed on to the consumers, including households. Please see articles referenced under “Alternative, Green (“Clean”) Energy.

****************************

Australia: Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Gillard of Australia announced a carbon tax (a complete misnomer) ostensibly to save the planet from global warming. This announcement may cost her the government. Opposition is furious and is mounting. The false claims of her bureaucratic scientists are being exposed. Please see articles referenced under “Challenging the Orthodoxy.”

****************************

New York Times: Last month, the New York Times featured a two part series by Ian Urbina questioning the economic viability of extracting natural gas from shale and suggesting the process raises significant environmental dangers. According to reports, Arthur Brisbane, the ombudsman of the NYT, has issued a sharp rebuke to the reporter. But the series has consequences because it gives ammunition to those who seek to stop the drilling for natural gas from shale. Among the reasons given for stopping such drilling is that it is sharply reducing the price of natural gas making the cost of generating electricity from wind and other alternative sources economically ridiculous. Please see articles referenced under “Oil and Natural Gas – the Future or the Past?”

****************************

Heat Wave: Much of the US has been experiencing a heat wave. The Pacific Northwest, where the unusually long skiing season just ended, is an exception. With the heat comes a chorus of those who are chanting global warming. During cold winter periods, the same group chants it’s just the weather.

Unfortunately, many weather commentators have been claiming that heat is the most significant killer among extreme weather events. Apparently, these claims are based on reports from the National Climatic Data Center. Yet, the mortality statistics compiled by the US Center on Disease Control show that in the US, extreme cold is by far the deadliest natural hazard. Please see articles referenced under “Changing Weather.”

****************************

Number of the Week: 2.2 v. 1.3. The first is the US death rate per million from extreme cold, 1993 to 2006. The second is the US death rate per million from extreme heat during the same period. Please see page 106 of the Indur Goklany article referenced under “Changing Weather.”

****************************

Corrections and Amplifications: Out of town travel resulted in less than desirable proofreading. A number of TWTW readers commented on several errors or omissions.

TWTW stated that “humanity and the environment do not face eminent [distinguished] destruction.” The correct word is imminent [immediate].

TWTW stated laboratory experiments [and subsequent calculations] show that a doubling of CO2, absent of feedbacks, will increase temperatures by about 1.2 deg C. Several readers asked what experiments? Here we refer to the historical references of Working Group I of the main reports of the IPCC, which some may contest, but we do not.

Reader Ken Gregory noted that TWTW erred in stating that a popular email, falsely associated with Ian Plimer, claimed that the volcano in Iceland, Eyjafjallajökull, emits more CO2 in four days than the human race has ever emitted. The correct statement is that the email falsely claims that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, in the Philippines, emitted more CO2 than human race has ever emitted. Emissions from human activity are far greater than those of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption. Gregory also gave additional detailed calculations, etc. of emissions from these volcanoes as compared with human emissions.

[SEPP Comment: The Hook. Self-proclaimed experts release the excited summary and press release first, followed by substantiation later. See below. This is not to state that overfishing of certain species is not a problem, but many of the issues are highly exaggerated.]

[SEPP Comment: Producing about 40.8% of the world’s harvest by ton, the US is the world’s largest producer of corn. According to the article, of US production this year 12.1% will be used for food or seed, 43.7% will be used for animal feed, and 44.2% for ethanol – transportation.]

Post navigation

6 thoughts on “Weekly Weather and Climate News Roundup”

Excellent compilation. This stuff cannot be kept under the carpet forever. Regarding the ‘carbon pollution’ tax in Australia – people are already getting angry about it. Imagine how angry they will be when they discover what a fraudulent idea it is built upon.

From Penn State: “From the household perspective, reductions in energy expenditures act like a tax cut for the Pennsylvania economy, increasing discretionary income.”
—-
Interesting phraseology in the report. On the one hand, the employer of Professor M. Mann admits that tax-reductions increase discretionary spending (usually referred to as “voodoo” economics), but in the actual report they suggest who Pennsylvania voters will (or should?) give credit to.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy